Large-scale, industrial but Ecologically-beneficial?

If you have been following this blog, you would know that I think the evidence does not show a very positive view of agriculture as it is now i.e. conventional agriculture. However, moving on from the mistakes of the past, it seems that conventional/industrial modes of production have recognised the unsustainability of their practices as they were in the 1950s. In fact,  arguing for a whole system change (e.g. switch to agroforestry or completely local farming) which might be ideal/most beneficia but might not be globally feasible amidst many many constraints.

In the field of agriculture, perspectives are often split as to what is the most green/ecologically friendly approach (that works). This split is between the "Environmentalist" (ideal) VS "Agriculturalist" (practical)- although I personally don't feel the dichotomy is necessary/always justified. An environmentalist tends to differ in their dislike for large-scale, capitalized, industrialized production (and from the previous posts, it does seem like a small-scale approach if with a lot of attention and passion does work out very well in those case studies).  For example, Joel Salatin does not advocate large-scale agriculture. However, in the real commercial, profit-driven economy, small farms might not be globally successful if conditions are not right (e.g. government/community is not supportive), especially given the extensive infrastructure/system that supports industrial-scale agricultural techniques/ functions i.e. a whole-system might just not be possible (now at least).

This study by Daviset al shows that, like Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm, this large-scale approach works too works! And the results are highly encouraging (summarized in this article: Big, Smart and Green: A RevolutionaryVision for Modern Farming)

Caption from the site: Two-year corn-and-soy rotation field (left) and four-year rotation field covered in alfalfa (right). Both were photographed in early September, 2012. By using cover crops like alfalfa, researchers achieved dramatic reductions in herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer use without sacrificing productivity. Photo: David Sundberg
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/10/marsden_fields.jpg

By using crop diversification (e.g. 4yrs with 4 crops as compared to normal 2yrs with 2 crops- see the difference visually in the photo above!), they were able to  maintain and even increase yield with very minimal chemical inputs (8 times less). In the end, weeds were fewer and freshwater sources in proximity had much lower pollution when compared to conventional systems. I quote: “We exceeded those goals — not by pumping chemicals in, but by maximizing ecosystem services,” Davis said. “We’re not throwing away those tools. They’re very important. But you use a strong cropping system as the foundation for your agriculture. Then, when you need it, you tweak it a little bit with the inputs.”

By "tuning and tweaking", this form of farming with "technology's new tools", this form of farming could be alluded to (but isn't explicitly mentioned by the researchers) 'precision farming' a recent movement in industrial-scaleagriculture that has an ecological-bent to it (or it could be motivated by cost-savings, which isn't mutually exclusive really).

Precision farming

In general, precision farming ... (Paarlberg, 2010)

• When coupled to conventional agriculture has resulted in a decline from the peak of its negative impacts with an  increase in 5% yield with a fall in impact per area in recent years
• Involves no-till techniques which result in decreased soil erosion
• Uses GIS,  GPS, Infrared technologies to, for example, measure the  depth of  the soil so that we know exactly how much to fertilize and this prevents wastage in the process
• Uses GMOs to allow pest control with less chemicals

Ultimately, proponents argue, there is no limit to impact-reduction possibilities. While the above benefits might be broad generalizations that do not always hold (and in this case GMO wasn't necessary with proper crop rotations and integrated pest management- read more on IPM here*), it is clear that with the use of such technologies coupled to efforts like that by Davis et al., industrial agriculture could be a part of the reformation of destructive agriculture. A case in point would be the use of precision farming in contributing to the knowledge of integrated pest management (using biological methods to control pests) and for site-specific weed control (Gerhards, 2011)

In conclusion...

Precision agriculture when used to investigate and take advantage of ecological principles with the use of small amounts of chemical, is a thoughtful and beneficial approach to large-scale farming that should be put in place more and more rapidly (given that most of the appropriate infrastructure is in place!). All is needed now is more awareness of this approach perhaps and more research in terms of how this can be applied for different crops (Bramley, 2008).

It is definitely stepping in a right direction of using science to care for nature and reaping the benefits that  that brings :)

* I quote a useful definition from the article:

"IPM involves the concerted use of multiple tactics to suppress and kill pests and reduce crop damage to economically acceptable levels. Emphasis is placed on modifying habitat characteristics to
reduce pest densities and promote crop health, conserving and releasing beneficial
organisms that attack pests, and planting pest-resistant cultivars.
Pesticides are used in IPM systems as therapeutic tools only when preventive
practices fail to provide adequate control. "